SARDAR ALI vs WAZIR KHAN--.'Respondent
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of an order passed by the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's civil revision and maintained the concurrent findings of the lower courts. The petitioner had filed a suit for possession through specific performance of an agreement to sell, which was contested by the respondent on the ground that the document was forged. Both the trial court and the first appellate court dismissed the suit after recording evidence and concluding that the document had not been duly proved. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the lower courts erred in discarding the evidence produced by the petitioner, particularly the testimony of the scribe of the document. The Supreme Court held that the scribe failed to furnish trustworthy evidence to establish the transaction and the payment made thereunder. Consequently, the Court affirmed the concurrent findings, ruling that the document was not proved according to law and dismissing the petition for leave to appeal.
- Whether concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial court and the first appellate court regarding the non-proof of an agreement to sell can be interfered with by the Supreme Court?
- Does the testimony of the scribe of an agreement to sell suffice to prove the transaction when it lacks trustworthy evidence?
- Can a suit for specific performance be decreed when the underlying agreement to sell is not proved according to law?
ORDER
' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.--- This petition for leave to appeal is filed against order, dated 15-9-2004 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, whereby Civil Revision No,2285 of 2004 filed by the petitioner against findings recorded by the trial Court dated 4-2-2003 and the First Appellate Court dated 26-7-2004, have been dismissed.
2. Precisely stating facts of the case are that petitioner filed a suit for possession through specific performance of agreement to sell dated 22-7-1989 (Exh.P.1) against the respondent in respect of the property description whereof has been given therein. The suit was- contested by other side pleading that Exh.P.1 was a forged document. Learned trial Court having recorded evidence and taking into consideration the respective pleas of the parties, dismissed the suit. Learned First Appellate Court maintained findings of fact recorded by the trial Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that evidence produced by the petitioner through P.W.3 Malik Shoukat Ali and other witness has been discarded without any legal justification.
4. We have heard learned counsel and have also gone through the statement of P.W.3 carefully. It is true that P.W.3 is scribe of the document but he had failed to furnish trustworthy evidence to establish that the transaction in respect of sale of land took place between the parties in pursuance whereof the petitioner paid Rs,1, 00,000 out of total sale consideration of Rs,1,25,000.
Since the document (Exh.P.1) has not been proved on record according to law, therefore, no exception can be taken to the impugned judgment which is based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record.
5. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, petition is dismissed and leave declined.
Cited by 6 cases
- Sultanat Khan and another vs Sadbar Khan and others 2022 PHC 426
- Ismail vs Nazreen and others 2023 CLC 69
- Sami Ullah vs Rehmat Ullah 2021 PHC 410, 2022 MLD 681
- Dil Araam and another vs Sherzada and 6 others 2022 YLR 605
- Muhammad Anwar vs Mst. Bahrawar Sultana and 2 others 2021 CLC 1707
- REZA IQBAL vs ROYAL GROUP though Attorney 2011 PLD Karachi 524